Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

“Not Taking Rights Seriously”. Opting for the Primacy of EU Law over Broader Human Rights Protection

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Opinion 2/13’s ‘Unserious’ Stance on Article 53 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’ Relationship to Article 53 ECHR

The European Union (EU) accession to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) has been a hot topic in the European legal discourse in this decade. Ruling on the compliance of the Draft Agreement on EU accession to the ECHR with the EU Treaties, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) came up with a rather controversial Opinion. It ruled that the Draft Agreement is incompliant with the EU Treaties in several respects. One of the core concerns in Opinion 2/13 relates to the management of horizontal relationship between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (ChFR) and ECHR, namely Article 53 ChFR and Article 53 ECHR. The article examines the Opinion 2/13’s specific concerns on the relationship between Article 53 ChFR and Article 53 ECHR from a post-accession perspective. It starts by considering the question of the two 53s’ relationship from the EU-law autonomy viewpoint, indicating the main gaps that may present a danger to the latter. While questioning from a number of perspectives the plausibility of the CJEU’s arguments in relation to the two 53s, the article argues that the Court was both controversial and argued against itself when it drew harshly upon these concerns. The article also presents three options to address the CJEU’s requirements on this issue. The article concludes that the CJEU’s statements on the two 53s will seriously hurt the accession project, while critically limiting the possibility of Member States to provide broader protection.

Affiliations: 1: PhD in Law, Vrije Universiteit Brussel; Research Fellow at frc Research Group, Faculty of Law and Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, fisnik@legalpoliticalstudies.org; 2: PhD Researcher, Faculty of Law, University of Hamburg, drendoli@gmail.com

10.1163/22131035-00402004
/content/journals/10.1163/22131035-00402004
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22131035-00402004
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/22131035-00402004
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22131035-00402004
2015-11-13
2018-04-22

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    International Human Rights Law Review — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation